D$D's idea

[DeadMoneyDad]

This is a little long so bear with me please.

Let me start by asking a question.

You are on "Let's Make a Deal."

You are told that behind one of three doors it a new Lambo, behind the other two are donkeys.

You pick a door say #3, Monte reveals door number #1 to show one of the two donkeys, and offers you the chance to change your answer.

Do you?


I suggest that some of us were operating on the belief that Congress passed the UIGEA to appease the Religious Right on anti-gambling grounds.

Now we have new evidence that perhaps the US banking industry itself for some reason doesn't want at least off-shore banking interests to be handling the some 3/4 of a trillion dollars that is "gambled" each year. About 1/2 of which we are told is now done on-line.

We've gained this new evidence in the form of the primary reason stated for not only the Congressional action, but the primary justification listed by the Agencies in the Proposed Rule itself.

I suggest that if you look at the possible outcomes from the PPA's suggested course of action "helping the Agencies define the term UIG to specifically include or exempt poker are not only unrealistic but even if possible is a bad bet.

Even if there was a better than 50/50 chance that the Agencies would actually take this step there is only at best a 50/50 chance they would decide in on-line poker's favor.

Given my suggestion that the Agencies would not attempt to define what they admit is an unclear law, let alone take on Congress' job of defining a UIG.

Given the presures in the form of the interests or even "customers" of the Agencies and the fact Congress gave the affected parties a libality free pass to do what in effect they are already doing on other grounds what makes rational person let alone a Baysian think the Banks will fight against a rule they pushed in the first place? Let alone the very Agencies that regulate their industry will suddenly buck their customers?

To suggest that we will in effect hit a runner runner winner is looking for a bad beat IMO.

I don't hold myself out to be the smartest guy on the planet, or even in the top 5%, but the Jesuits and some poker skills tell me this PPA direction is a looser.

To suggest that it is wrong to question the motives of any organization who not only suggests such a course of action let alone being public pillory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pillory) for suggesting repeatedly there might be another way that has a better chance of a better on-line poker world is just amazing to me. The fact that there are a lot of willing sheep to follow blindly along does not.

I do not know the reason for this decision. I did ask for the reasoning behind the decision before being told this is the way it is, before offering some possible motives.

Perhaps it is as simple as the lobbiests look at see that if the banks even a single US bank sides with Doyle's room or any other on-line operator they will loose a paying lobbing customer. I don't know and I don't care.

I've stated what I care about and TE suggested the PPA's my personal goals are pretty much the same. All we are left with is a discussion on how we best achieve them. Either the members of the PPA have a say in things or we don't. No I am not saying it is my way or the highway, but suggesting that is the impression we are left with in the answers we are given.

By the way you should always change your beliefs in the case of the 3 door situation given new information.

Most people would say the odds and probability haven't changed, but in fact according to Bayes Theorem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes'_theorem) you should change your answer to increase you chance of winning given new evidence.





D$D

[Orlando Salazar]

Umm, you're wrong about the Donkey/Ferrari door.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Now we have new evidence that perhaps the US banking industry itself for some reason doesn't want at least off-shore banking interests to be handling the some 3/4 of a trillion dollars that is "gambled" each year. About 1/2 of which we are told is now done on-line.

We've gained this new evidence in the form of the primary reason stated for not only the Congressional action, but the primary justification listed by the Agencies in the Proposed Rule itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

This may be "new evidence" to you, but there's really nothing new here. Banks didn't like the credit card chargebacks, so many started declining Visa and MasterCard Internet gaming transactions some time ago (even prior to the act that restricted credit card transactions on Internet gaming a few years ago). That doesn't mean they WANT to ban all transactions. Rather, it means they want to get paid.

You've shown no evidence that banks drove UIGEA. Evidence you cited says nothing about banks WANTING UIGEA. Why would they? You think they wanted to police the Internet? Sorry, but they're far better off with legality. Their issue is simple....they don't want to get stiffed by gamblers who don't want to pay up. Explicitly legalize gaming and that goes away.

[ QUOTE ]
To suggest that it is wrong to question the motives of any organization who not only suggests such a course of action let alone being public pillory for suggesting repeatedly there might be another way that has a better chance of a better on-line poker world is just amazing to me. The fact that there are a lot of willing sheep to follow blindly along does not.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to have very thin skin. It's like you think no one is allowed to disagree with you. That's not how it works here on 2p2. If you post an opinion, we're allowed to discuss it. That's what "discussion boards" are all about. If you want to make a positive contribution here, you may want to grow a pair. That would work better than calling people who disagree with you "sheep" and getting all bent out of shape at everyone.

Your new avatar says it all. Your old one was conveyed feelings of working together toward a common goal. Your new one conveys an attitude of trying to force your opinions on everyone and then banging your head out of frustration at being unsuccessful. I hope you'll return to posting with us instead of at us. You were far more effective then.

[ QUOTE ]
Either the members of the PPA have a say in things or we don't. No I am not saying it is my way or the highway, but suggesting that is the impression we are left with in the answers we are given.

[/ QUOTE ]

You didn't contact the PPA with your questions. You asked me, and I shared my opinion with you. If you want to contact the PPA, they can be reached at email@pokerplayersalliance.org.

[JPFisher55]

D$D, even if we choose the wrong door and online poker is defined to be UIG, then we get another chance, i.e. litigation in federal court. In that deal there are 3 doors and behind 2 of them is affirmation of precedent already set in federa court that federal gambling laws do not cover online poker.
With those odds, IMO we are better off than no definition of UIG. With no definition of UIG, we have 3 doors and behind 2 is the outcome that in practice the banks will enforce the regs so that online poker is UIG. Then the litigation deal is worse because of standing and other procedural issues. They cause the the number of litigation doors to increase to at least 4 with favorable results behind only 2 doors.
I'm sorry that this is hard to follow, but I am trying to stay within the bounds of D$D's post.

[omgwtf]

First of all, yes you pick the other door. It increases your chances of getting the ferrari. This is a somewhat classic math story problem.

But you're right about the overall problem here. There is no way the regulators are going to view UIGEA as anything other than Congress' intention to ban all internet gambling, including poker. If they decide to clarify what constitutes UIG, it will be with the understanding that it was the intention of the bill's authors to ban poker.

The PPA's strategy here is a sure loser. The equivalent of saying "Excuse me officer, you forgot to ticket me for my broken tail light."

I just can't figure out why the PPA would be advocating such an obviously doomed course when dealing with the UIGEA regs. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but one could certainly be forgiven for thinking that such an obvious mistake is an intentional one.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
D$D, even if we choose the wrong door and online poker is defined to be UIG, then we get another chance, i.e. litigation in federal court. In that deal there are 3 doors and behind 2 of them is affirmation of precedent already set in federa court that federal gambling laws do not cover online poker.
With those odds, IMO we are better off than no definition of UIG. With no definition of UIG, we have 3 doors and behind 2 is the outcome that in practice the banks will enforce the regs so that online poker is UIG. Then the litigation deal is worse because of standing and other procedural issues. They cause the the number of litigation doors to increase to at least 4 with favorable results behind only 2 doors.
I'm sorry that this is hard to follow, but I am trying to stay within the bounds of D$D's post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree. D$D stated a belief that banks want UIGEA. I don't concur, but if that were so, we'd definitely not want to leave it to them to define UIG, I think, especially as there's no penalty for overblocking and massive penalties for underblocking (if the banking regs are not deemed sufficient).

As for D$D's doors, the example is applicable only if each decision is of equal probability. For example, if you knew door #1 had a 98% likelihood of having a Lambo behind it, and the others a 1% likelihood each, you'd stick to door #1 even if door #3 was shown to be a donkey. Likewise, we KNOW FoF had a lot to do with UIGEA. There's absolutely no question about it. This (not so) new info on banks changes little.

[Orlando Salazar]

The NFL also had a bunch to do with it.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
The NFL also had a bunch to do with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely.

[Uglyowl]

[ QUOTE ]
First of all, yes you pick the other door. It increases your chances of getting the ferrari. This is a somewhat classic math story problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are right, it is a famous "ask Marilyn" problem. Quite a fascinating problem to think through. Summary below. D$D: Sorry to sidetrack.

Monty Hall problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_hall_problem)

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
D$D, even if we choose the wrong door and online poker is defined to be UIG, then we get another chance, i.e. litigation in federal court. In that deal there are 3 doors and behind 2 of them is affirmation of precedent already set in federa court that federal gambling laws do not cover online poker.
With those odds, IMO we are better off than no definition of UIG. With no definition of UIG, we have 3 doors and behind 2 is the outcome that in practice the banks will enforce the regs so that online poker is UIG. Then the litigation deal is worse because of standing and other procedural issues. They cause the the number of litigation doors to increase to at least 4 with favorable results behind only 2 doors.
I'm sorry that this is hard to follow, but I am trying to stay within the bounds of D$D's post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree. D$D stated a belief that banks want UIGEA. I don't concur, but if that were so, we'd definitely not want to leave it to them to define UIG, I think, especially as there's no penalty for overblocking and massive penalties for underblocking (if the banking regs are not deemed sufficient).

As for D$D's doors, the example is applicable only if each decision is of equal probability. For example, if you knew door #1 had a 98% likelihood of having a Lambo behind it, and the others a 1% likelihood each, you'd stick to door #1 even if door #3 was shown to be a donkey. Likewise, we KNOW FoF had a lot to do with UIGEA. There's absolutely no question about it. This (not so) new info on banks changes little.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then why on page 27 of the proposed regulation is the first benfit mentioned is the banking industry's credit and collection concern?

The FoF types tried for 15 years with the AG's to stop the spread of gambling and worked even harder after after the poker boom to stop the "crack" of gaming on-line poker.

One of my bank's T&C's printed in May of 2005 says it will not accept any electronic gaming transaction including horse racing and on-line lottery sales.

You may think the FoF types got this bill and they might think they got this bill, but I think it was the banks that used the existing leverage of the FoF to push and take the political heat for this. I suggest we put the heat where it belongs.

We can not know the exact probibility of the two remaining doors, I can assign some if you like.

The probability the Agencies will play congress and write new law 0.01

The probability the Agencies will tell the banks they are going to write the proposed regualtion to specifically allow one of the most popular forms of on-line gaming? Again about 0.01

So even if you get your dream of the Agencies to write UIG to include poker we end up in court ot back to Congress hat in hand begging for a Wexler Bill. Which we can push without any effort on the proposed reg and the undefined keeps all of our options.

In truth I think we are playing a rigged game and there is no Lambo at this point of the process, as the odds of the PPA organizing a real concerted grassroots effort at the banks is also about 0.01.

This might also be the read of the board and John, to see how much muscle the PPA can manage before FT and PS throws more money at him, as for them either dream senario helps.

In truth the Lambo is behind a door on Capital Hill.


D$D

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Then why on page 27 of the proposed regulation is the first benfit mentioned is the banking industry's credit and collection concern?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because banks want to get paid. What's shocking about that? Besides, these are Federal Reserve regulations, and they apply specifically to financial institutions. Of course they mention banks.

[ QUOTE ]
You may think the FoF types got this bill and they might think they got this bill, but I think it was the banks that used the existing leverage of the FoF to push and take the political heat for this. I suggest we put the heat where it belongs.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a conspiracy theory until you can find some proof.

[ QUOTE ]
In truth I think we are playing a rigged game and there is no Lambo at this point of the process, as the odds of the PPA organizing a real concerted grassroots effort at the banks is also about 0.01.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, but without proof I'm LOL at your bank conspiracy theory. Proof, please.

[ QUOTE ]
The probability the Agencies will tell the banks they are going to write the proposed regualtion to specifically allow one of the most popular forms of on-line gaming? Again about 0.01

[/ QUOTE ]

You're missing the big picture. How long do you think they'll need to write a reg that defines UIG? Keep in mind they cannot make up new laws. I'll bet it will take some time. Also, if defined regs are bad for us, FoF will ask for them. If they ask and we don't, it will look like all comments were in favor of their definition. If undefined regs are bad for us, no one will say anything. Lose-lose.

You said the banks want UIGEA. If so, ambiguity is the worst thing for us.

[ QUOTE ]
This might also be the read of the board and John, to see how much muscle the PPA can manage before FT and PS throws more money at him, as for them either dream senario helps.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, LOL. Anyone who disagrees with you is on the take.

In the poll I put up on the other thread, your position has received zero votes. That's why it's not being responded it....it has no backing. It's not because PPA won't respond to what the members want...it's because PPA is responding to what members want.

There's a new PPA now, and we're all working very hard to secure our rights. It's not yet perfect, but it is focused on our goals.

[TheEngineer]

[TheEngineer]

TYPO: I meant UIGEA, but I guess you all figured that out.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Again, LOL. Anyone who disagrees with you is on the take.

[/ QUOTE ]


ROFLMO anyone who disagrees with you is a conspiracy nut. Futhermore if you put your foot in your mouth pushing the PPA line you pull a chairman Al "I was speaking for myself" dodge.


Keep running your meaningless polls.


As my 12 daughter says; "good luck with that!"



D$D

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Again, LOL. Anyone who disagrees with you is on the take.

[/ QUOTE ]


ROFLMO anyone who disagrees with you is a conspiracy nut. Futhermore if you put your foot in your mouth pushing the PPA line you pull a chairman Al "I was speaking for myself" dodge.


Keep running your meaningless polls.


As my 12 daughter says; "good luck with that!"



D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

I am totally speaking for myself here, as always. You seem obsessed with my PPA board seat. I joined to further our cause, not to push the PPA line or for any self-aggrandizement. In fact, I told two people about it....my wife and my mom. It's not that I'm not proud of my work for our rights. I am proud to fight for my rights. Rather, I didn't lobby for the seat, not does it hold any value for me beyond my ability to utilize it to further our cause. So, if you think I'm going to post bland, corporate-speak posts, you're mistaken.

Further, I'm not really the PPA rep here....I'm the 2p2 Legislation forum rep (not to be confused with 2p2 LLC, whom I do not represent) and the players' rep to the PPA. To clarify....I'll continue to speak my mind, as always. If you don't like it, tough [censored].

As for this issue, I personally agree with the PPA line, as do the majority here. We're (2p2) not going to refocus on banks just because you have some idea with no proof, as evidenced by the meaningful poll (sorry, but our opinions are meaningful to me, if not to you), no matter how many people you insult by questioning their motives and ideas. If the poll goes the other way, I'll take the results to PPA.

Cheers.

[TheEngineer]

By the way, I put up polls to determine how the forum feels about issues. If you've not noticed, I should mention that I've never tried to force my personal opinions on the forum majority. Rather, I read all the posts carefully (one learns more by listening than by talking) and put up an occasional poll to understand how the majority here feels about issues and to understand the pros and cons. I then try to craft ways we can all work together to achieve our goals. When folks disagree with me, I use that info to improve and to optimize our direction, and I thank them for their input (even if I disagree with them). Not only is this much more effective than trying to force opinions onto people...it leads to a better overall result. Besides, I have too much respect for my fellow posters to not listen to them. I should, as most of them are smarter than I am. I'm not suggesting you do the same....I'm just sharing my approach and letting you know the deal with the polls.

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
Umm, you're wrong about the Donkey/Ferrari door.

[/ QUOTE ]

.... because D$D forgot one important criteria in setting up his problem.....

Oh yeah, while I'm being a nit:

"Most people would say the odds and probability haven't changed, but in fact according to Bayes Theorem you should change your answer to increase you chance of winning given new evidence."

Opening the door to reveal the goat, which you knew was behind at least one of the two doors, doesn't give you "new" evidence, if you'd set up the Monty Hall problem correctly.

[Lottery Larry]

Sorry, but Engineer has more credibility points than you do imo.

[Skallagrim]

Most people find the Monty Hall problem counter intuitive because they dont pay attention to the details. ONLY if Monty is required to show a door with a goat every time, and if he knows in advance its a goat, is it advantageous to switch.

If, as most folks assume, Monty may or may not open a door to a goat, the odds stay the same.

Skallagrim

[Skallagrim]

And another thing since its a Friday afternoon and I am starting to get back into a good mood. How about a truce TE and D$D?

TE has been a tremendous asset to these boards and to the poker cause.

D$D is a recent arrival with an otherwise generally not heard from point of view. And he certainly seems committed to the cause too.

Neither of you should need to get the better of, or keep responding to, the other (its obvious which is which, aint it?). Although admittedly with D$D it sometimes takes 2 or 3 posts to figure out what he means /images/graemlins/wink.gif.

Peace.

Skallagrim

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
D$D is a recent arrival with an otherwise generally not heard from point of view. And he certainly seems committed to the cause too.

[/ QUOTE ]

TE is clearly committed to the cause. I think it's also clear D$D is committed to D$D's cause.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
D$D is a recent arrival with an otherwise generally not heard from point of view. And he certainly seems committed to the cause too.

[/ QUOTE ]

TE is clearly committed to the cause. I think it's also clear D$D is committed to D$D's cause.

[/ QUOTE ]

And what pray tell is that cause?


D$D

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
D$D is a recent arrival with an otherwise generally not heard from point of view. And he certainly seems committed to the cause too.

[/ QUOTE ]

TE is clearly committed to the cause. I think it's also clear D$D is committed to D$D's cause.

[/ QUOTE ]

And what pray tell is that cause?


[/ QUOTE ]

If I could make sense out of your posts I might take a shot at answering that /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
D$D is a recent arrival with an otherwise generally not heard from point of view. And he certainly seems committed to the cause too.

[/ QUOTE ]

TE is clearly committed to the cause. I think it's also clear D$D is committed to D$D's cause.

[/ QUOTE ]

And what pray tell is that cause?


[/ QUOTE ]

If I could make sense out of your posts I might take a shot at answering that /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. /images/graemlins/crazy.gif

I was hoping you might suggest the line.

"D$D should just be committed...."


D$D

[TheMathProf]

While I don't share all of D$D's concerns here, I do share his concerns asking for a definition of unlawful gambling.

I hear the statements of, "This lobby can't do the job of Congress." Suggesting that the only answer they can come back with is basically sports gambling and anything specifically forbidden by state statutes.

Personally, I'm not convinced of this. I'm not convinced that they can't come back saying that poker is illegal. OK, so we fight it through the courts/legislatures if they do, but how long does that take? Who's to say that we win?

As I see it, we're basically asking for this set of regulations to say, "Poker is OK." I don't see that happening here. My suspicion is that the most likely outcome results in the definition being some additional legalese that might contain subtle wording nuances with legal implications that may or may not cut in our favor.

As much as the legality of online poker is something that I think we all would hope for, I think that this should be done through pro-poker/gambling legislation, judicial decisions where possible, and building public support.

I would hate to go to an entity, in the hopes that we've assessed everything correctly, but where we don't really know where we stand, when we could be patient with the progress we're making legislatively and in a more controlled environment.

Just my two quid.

[TheEngineer]

PPA is recommending requesting a defininition of the term "unlawful Internet gambling" because that's what's best for poker. There's little risk in the regs defining UIG to include Internet poker. First of all, it isn't unlawful. Secondly (and most importantly), if they could have done that, they would have in the first place. After all, Treasury is part of the Executive branch, under President Bush.

An additional benefit to this is that creating the definition would take months if not years (especially if horse racing fights back with us), delaying implementation of the regs. The regs themselves state the difficulty of defining this. We benefit both in terms of the administration change and in getting extra time to pass pro-poker legislation. We can post 1,000 different ways to do it, or tell them to just do it, but they'll have to respond to all of them. Let's just be clear that we want poker excluded. They may or may not do this, but they won't do it if no one asks, so let's all get to writing. Thanks.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
PPA is recommending requesting a defininition of the term "unlawful Internet gambling" because that's what's best for poker. There's little risk in the regs defining UIG to include Internet poker. First of all, it isn't unlawful. Secondly (and most importantly), if they could have done that, they would have in the first place. After all, Treasury is part of the Executive branch, under President Bush.

An additional benefit to this is that creating the definition would take months if not years (especially if horse racing fights back with us), delaying implementation of the regs. The regs themselves state the difficulty of defining this. We benefit both in terms of the administration change and in getting extra time to pass pro-poker legislation. We can post 1,000 different ways to do it, or tell them to just do it, but they'll have to respond to all of them. Let's just be clear that we want poker excluded. They may or may not do this, but they won't do it if no one asks, so let's all get to writing. Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

They type of anyswer you are likely to get:

Dear T.E.

We have fully looked into the basis of you comments on the UIGEA proposed rule Regulation GG; Docket No. R-1298. We thank you for your letter of October 19th, 2007.

"The Act does not spell out which activities are legal and which are illegal, but rather relies on underlying substantive Federal and State laws."

"The Act requires the Agencies (in conjunction with the U.S. Attorney General) to designate payment systems that could be used in connection with or facilitate restricted transactions."

Therefore we are not concerned with the wager but the money that will be or has been wagered illegaly the unlawful internet gambling money (UIG$).

Any monetary transaction that is sent to or recevied from a site that is involved in UIG is considered UIG$. A site is considered UIG if it has not met all appliciable Federal and State laws.

It is the opinion of the U.S. AG that any monies originating from any offshore poker site are highly tainted and while some portions of those monies may be lawful internet gambling (LIG) it is in the best interests of the nation and the financal system as a whole to block all transaction. The flow of UIG$ is a major problem for this country and other countries around the world. While we fully understand your passion for the game of poker I am sure you understand the security of this country is more important than your entertainment from this personal pastime.

I feel it is my duty to inform you that it is the opinion of the KY AG in consultation with the US AG that your playing on-line poker in KY is in violation of the following State statute; 528.020 Promoting gambling in the first degree by downloading FT's software and thus turning your computer into a gambling device(1)(c). While you have not filed any income tax returns in connection with your participation with the PPA if you receive any compensation be it monetary or otherwise you may be inviolation of 528.030 Promoting gambling in the second degree. We have noticed you participation in the on-line forum sponsored by 2+2 LLC, the KY AG has written 2+2 LLC that it may be in volation of 528.040 Conspiracy to promote gambling.

We hope this addresses your concern,

Valerie A. Abend

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
PPA is recommending requesting a defininition of the term "unlawful Internet gambling" because that's what's best for poker. There's little risk in the regs defining UIG to include Internet poker. First of all, it isn't unlawful. Secondly (and most importantly), if they could have done that, they would have in the first place. After all, Treasury is part of the Executive branch, under President Bush.

An additional benefit to this is that creating the definition would take months if not years (especially if horse racing fights back with us), delaying implementation of the regs. The regs themselves state the difficulty of defining this. We benefit both in terms of the administration change and in getting extra time to pass pro-poker legislation. We can post 1,000 different ways to do it, or tell them to just do it, but they'll have to respond to all of them. Let's just be clear that we want poker excluded. They may or may not do this, but they won't do it if no one asks, so let's all get to writing. Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

They type of anyswer you are likely to get:

Dear T.E.

We have fully looked into the basis of you comments on the UIGEA proposed rule Regulation GG; Docket No. R-1298. We thank you for your letter of October 19th, 2007.

"The Act does not spell out which activities are legal and which are illegal, but rather relies on underlying substantive Federal and State laws."

"The Act requires the Agencies (in conjunction with the U.S. Attorney General) to designate payment systems that could be used in connection with or facilitate restricted transactions."

Therefore we are not concerned with the wager but the money that will be or has been wagered illegaly the unlawful internet gambling money (UIG$).

Any monetary transaction that is sent to or recevied from a site that is involved in UIG is considered UIG$. A site is considered UIG if it has not met all appliciable Federal and State laws.

It is the opinion of the U.S. AG that any monies originating from any offshore poker site are highly tainted and while some portions of those monies may be lawful internet gambling (LIG) it is in the best interests of the nation and the financal system as a whole to block all transaction. The flow of UIG$ is a major problem for this country and other countries around the world. While we fully understand your passion for the game of poker I am sure you understand the security of this country is more important than your entertainment from this personal pastime.

I feel it is my duty to inform you that it is the opinion of the KY AG in consultation with the US AG that your playing on-line poker in KY is in violation of the following State statute; 528.020 Promoting gambling in the first degree by downloading FT's software and thus turning your computer into a gambling device(1)(c). While you have not filed any income tax returns in connection with your participation with the PPA if you receive any compensation be it monetary or otherwise you may be inviolation of 528.030 Promoting gambling in the second degree. We have noticed you participation in the on-line forum sponsored by 2+2 LLC, the KY AG has written 2+2 LLC that it may be in volation of 528.040 Conspiracy to promote gambling.

We hope this addresses your concern,

Valerie A. Abend

[/ QUOTE ]

Whatever.

Everyone else: please submit lots of comments. You won't cause harm. The worst they can say is "no", and the best we can get is a lengthy delay. You certainly won't be investigated for advocating for your rights. If UIGEA could have been interpreted to include poker, the regs would have. Instead, the reg authors said they could not define UIG.

P.S. I've always paid all my taxes, and I'm not in violation of KRS 528.020, KRS 528.030, or KRS 528.040.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]


Whatever.

Everyone else: please submit lots of comments. You won't cause harm. The worst they can say is "no", and the best we can get is a lengthy delay. You certainly won't be investigated for advocating for your rights. If UIGEA could have been interpreted to include poker, the regs would have. Instead, the reg authors said they could not define UIG.

P.S. I've always paid all my taxes, and I'm not in violation of KRS 528.020, KRS 528.030, or KRS 528.040.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are correct there is no wrong comment and no I do not suggest that anyone will be investigated in this matter for simply commenting on the proposed regulations.

I was making a point that the legality or illegality of the gamble you make on the internet is highly dependent on where you are sitting when you make the wager.

As it is there is no legal reason for the Federal Government to attempt to block a simple desposit or withdraw to even an unregulated offshore poker site. That transaction is no more illegal even in spirit than me wiring the Rio $20k to establish a cash account in preperations for a trip to Vegas.

The UIGEA is completely unworkable in that the underlying State and Federal laws are based on you being in a certain jurisdiction when you make the wager. So unless the Federal Government is going to use the NSA to track every poker player in the US to track their IP to then determine the legality or illegality of the wager the UIGEA is worthless.

Mearly claiming any money sent to site where it might be possible to break the law and then considering any money transfer to or from that site tained is not only insane but unconstitutional.


D$D

[JPFisher55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Whatever.

Everyone else: please submit lots of comments. You won't cause harm. The worst they can say is "no", and the best we can get is a lengthy delay. You certainly won't be investigated for advocating for your rights. If UIGEA could have been interpreted to include poker, the regs would have. Instead, the reg authors said they could not define UIG.

P.S. I've always paid all my taxes, and I'm not in violation of KRS 528.020, KRS 528.030, or KRS 528.040.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are correct there is no wrong comment and no I do not suggest that anyone will be investigated in this matter for simply commenting on the proposed regulations.

I was making a point that the legality or illegality of the gamble you make on the internet is highly dependent on where you are sitting when you make the wager.

As it is there is no legal reason for the Federal Government to attempt to block a simple desposit or withdraw to even an unregulated offshore poker site. That transaction is no more illegal even in spirit than me wiring the Rio $20k to establish a cash account in preperations for a trip to Vegas.

The UIGEA is completely unworkable in that the underlying State and Federal laws are based on you being in a certain jurisdiction when you make the wager. So unless the Federal Government is going to use the NSA to track every poker player in the US to track their IP to then determine the legality or illegality of the wager the UIGEA is worthless.

Mearly claiming any money sent to site where it might be possible to break the law and then considering any money transfer to or from that site tained is not only insane but unconstitutional.


D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

D$D, your argument is essentially the basis of the iMEGA in its litigation to injoin enforcement of the UIGEA. I hope that the judge agrees with you and the iMEGA. Next week the judge will make a ruling on whether to grant (1) the government's motion to dismiss and (2) iMEGA's motion for preliminary injunction. IMO both motions will be denied and the case will proceed to a full trial, after discovery, on whether a final injunction should be issued. I think that the case includes relief for declaratory judgment that the Wire Act does not cover online gambling, mostly based on an interpretation to comply with the WTO.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]


D$D, your argument is essentially the basis of the iMEGA in its litigation to injoin enforcement of the UIGEA. I hope that the judge agrees with you and the iMEGA. Next week the judge will make a ruling on whether to grant (1) the government's motion to dismiss and (2) iMEGA's motion for preliminary injunction. IMO both motions will be denied and the case will proceed to a full trial, after discovery, on whether a final injunction should be issued. I think that the case includes relief for declaratory judgment that the Wire Act does not cover online gambling, mostly based on an interpretation to comply with the WTO.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll admit I haven't read any of the iMEGA briefs or filings, given that my impression was it was a pre-UIGEA action, the UIGEA and WTO consequences should enter the judges decision making but may not.

IMO there is a good reason the UIGEA is in Chapter 31 of the US Code. Even more enlightening to me is it is added to section 53 right after money laundering. I know all my "evidence" have been questioned and out voted in the polls in this forum.

But you are in the Banking Industry you might have an idea of the significance of the Act. Think globally. There is some 3/4 of a Trillion dollars of gambling a year, a good portion of which happend on-line recently. Of the 1/3 of a Trillion of the estimated dollars sloshing around the world in poker accounts, how much of that is sitting in US bank accounts or under the control of US regulators, or making money for US banks?

It is estimated that the US share of the world wide poker market is something around 1/2. All of these are estimates on the conservative side, many estimates run much higher. So that means that we US poker players are taking somthing like 180 billion dollars out of the US banking system and depositing it offshore.

Given that most Americans had never dreamed of owning an offshore bank account before the poker boom, let alone how easy the poker sites make creating such an account you have to understand how this cumulative effect might get the attention of the Federal Reserve. The value of the liquidity alone not even considering the unpaid interests is staggering to anyone who understand basic banking let alone international finance.

The old saying in D.C. in relation to the Federal budgets is something like a billion here and a billion there and eventually you are talking about real money.

So poker players are really the small fish in this ocean, and our interests are fairly minor compared to the global interests that we find ourselves involved in. To expect the powers to be to be overly concerned about less than a million unorganized self centered poker players is really making a poor read on the table.

IMO if we keep making blind reads on this table we as players are asking for a series of bad beats and will not understand what is really happening any more than a donkey playing his first freeroll.

Sorry that is the way I see it.



D$D

[JPFisher55]

D$D, the iMEGA case was filed in June 2007. The BetOnSports case predates the UIGEA. Mr. Carruthers was arrested in July 2006. The UIGEA will not affect the BetOnSports case, but the WTO judgment will.

[TheMathProf]

[ QUOTE ]
Secondly (and most importantly), if they could have done that [writing UIG regulations to include internet poker], they would have in the first place. After all, Treasury is part of the Executive branch, under President Bush.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with most of the rest of your argument, TheEngineer, but I'm not convinced by this part.

If I were writing a list of regulations, I would really like to keep the regulations short and to the point. And the Executive Branch may rely on people not being able to distinguish "Unlawful Internet Gambling" and "Internet Gambling is Unlawful" as part of the UIGEA.

In other words, by being deliberately vague, they may get over-regulation of items such as poker even though poker isn't expressly illegal. (OK, so now I get why you want the definition...)

But I think it's a bit of a stretch to go from "they haven't put it in the regulations" to "they can't put it in the regulations". I understand that they may not be permitted by law to put it in, but I guess I'm not convinced with an executive branch that believes it is above the law in many places.

I would like to be wrong about this, I'm just not convinced that I am. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
But I think it's a bit of a stretch to go from "they haven't put it in the regulations" to "they can't put it in the regulations". I understand that they may not be permitted by law to put it in, but I guess I'm not convinced with an executive branch that believes it is above the law in many places.

[/ QUOTE ]

The regulation writers pretty much say this themselves. I didn't make it up.

[ QUOTE ]
I would like to be wrong about this, I'm just not convinced that I am.

[/ QUOTE ]


That's okay. We don't all have to agree. We do all have to write, though.

Just make your comments on the regulations based on your feelings on what we'd like to accomplish.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
You certainly won't be investigated for advocating for your rights.

P.S. I've always paid all my taxes, and I'm not in violation of KRS 528.020, KRS 528.030, or KRS 528.040.

[/ QUOTE ]



$2.2 Million dollar fine for running a home game. (http://www.pokernews.com/news/2007/10/richard-lee-accepts-plea-deal.htm)

The Shiek getting deported under the Predator program.

IRS "Hit list" (http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/reports/0708_gpl_(2).pdf)

I would suggest that anyone that is high profile in the poker world makes sure they are squeeky clean.

One or two incidinces, no big deal, but this is almost a pattern.....


D$D

[Skallagrim]

Richard Lee paid for running a bookmaking operation, not a home poker game.

The Sheik is paying for some bad judgment of his when he was a youngster and the anti-immigrant law revisions post 9-11.

The IRS hit list says nothing obvious about poker, and, the only thing I know of that the IRS has said about poker recently was positive: most tournament winnings will not be subject to withholding, only reporting.

There is enough to be really concerned about without raising fears on spurious grounds.

Skallagrim

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You certainly won't be investigated for advocating for your rights.

P.S. I've always paid all my taxes, and I'm not in violation of KRS 528.020, KRS 528.030, or KRS 528.040.

[/ QUOTE ]



$2.2 Million dollar fine for running a home game. (http://www.pokernews.com/news/2007/10/richard-lee-accepts-plea-deal.htm)

The Shiek getting deported under the Predator program.

IRS "Hit list" (http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/reports/0708_gpl_(2).pdf)

I would suggest that anyone that is high profile in the poker world makes sure they are squeeky clean.

One or two incidinces, no big deal, but this is almost a pattern.....


D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

Totally irrelevant.

Everyone else: Please write. You won't be deported for standing up for your rights, nor will find black helicopters circling your home. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You certainly won't be investigated for advocating for your rights.

P.S. I've always paid all my taxes, and I'm not in violation of KRS 528.020, KRS 528.030, or KRS 528.040.

[/ QUOTE ]



$2.2 Million dollar fine for running a home game. (http://www.pokernews.com/news/2007/10/richard-lee-accepts-plea-deal.htm)

The Shiek getting deported under the Predator program.

IRS "Hit list" (http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/reports/0708_gpl_(2).pdf)

I would suggest that anyone that is high profile in the poker world makes sure they are squeeky clean.

One or two incidinces, no big deal, but this is almost a pattern.....


D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

Totally irrelevant.

Everyone else: Please write. You won't be deported for standing up for your rights, nor will find black helicopters circling your home. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Writting a comment could in no way be considered being high profile in the poker world.

More than a dozen times I have made it clear that anyone should write any comment their little heart desired and that they should NOT get the approval from ANYONE to do so.

TE your repeated attempts to mis-chatergize my posts, suggestions, and ideas, does you a dis-service. It is clear you can not see that.

Narrow minded people in power has through out history have used laws and misused laws to attempt to influence people that challenge their way of thinking. No TE I am not talking about you, here.

Listen to the Nixon tapes, Dick wanted to have John Lennon deported becuse he felt Lennon was a threat to the country.

But since the Federal Government and many State governments are very unfriendly to poker right now, I suggest everyone pay their taxes, file the offshore bank account form if nessecary, and whatever you need to do to keep on the right side of the law.

I have seen what the narrow minded uptight self-inflated ego types can do when pushed into a corner, D.C. is full of the little princes. I've sat in the meetings where someone floats an idea to punish someone they dislike, and unfortuantly seen it come to pass.



D$D

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
TE your repeated attempts to mis-chatergize my posts, suggestions, and ideas, does you a dis-service. It is clear you can not see that.

[/ QUOTE ]

IMO TE has been extremely level-headed in dealing with you. You are the one mis-characterizing TE's posts, as you have just done here.

Mods, at what point does D$D get banned for a while? He is clearly an excellent salesman as evidenced by his relentlessness in the face of resistance, but IMO his recent posts have gone over the edge. At least the posts that I have been able to decipher ...

[Berge20]

Nothing he's done is ban worthy.

I will ask that we focus on quality posts, not quantity, and that where possible we don't start attacking each other for differing views. Finally, when we disagree, please feel free to make your points, but please do not continually harp on them over and over and over--especially in multiple posts or threads.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
TE your repeated attempts to mis-chatergize my posts, suggestions, and ideas, does you a dis-service. It is clear you can not see that.

[/ QUOTE ]

zzzzzzzzz

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
TE your repeated attempts to mis-chatergize my posts, suggestions, and ideas, does you a dis-service. It is clear you can not see that.

[/ QUOTE ]

zzzzzzzzz

[/ QUOTE ]

Spoken like a true statesman.

Middle School that is.....


D$D

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
TE your repeated attempts to mis-chatergize my posts, suggestions, and ideas, does you a dis-service. It is clear you can not see that.

[/ QUOTE ]

zzzzzzzzz

[/ QUOTE ]

Spoken like a true statesman.

Middle School that is.....


D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you.

Keep attacking me. You haven't gained any traction yet, but maybe you'll get lucky eventually.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
TE your repeated attempts to mis-chatergize my posts, suggestions, and ideas, does you a dis-service. It is clear you can not see that.

[/ QUOTE ]

zzzzzzzzz

[/ QUOTE ]

Spoken like a true statesman.

Middle School that is.....


D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you.

Keep attacking me. You haven't gained any traction yet, but maybe you'll get lucky eventually.

[/ QUOTE ]


Good, you win, I quit.

You are a nice guy. A little straight forward and a believer in the system as learned in civics class. I don't. We are different people with different apporaches to some what the same goal.

I wish you well.

I look forward to meeting in person to- (tomorrow your time) night. Perhaps you will find I am not as big a jerk as perhaps you think I am.

But your first read could very well be correct or longer lasting.

As some say you never get a second chance to make a first impression.

Again Congrats on being named to the Board.


D$D

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Good, you win, I quit.

You are a nice guy. A little straight forward and a believer in the system as learned in civics class. I don't. We are different people with different apporaches to some what the same goal.

I wish you well.

I look forward to meeting in person to- (tomorrow your time) night. Perhaps you will find I am not as big a jerk as perhaps you think I am.

But your first read could very well be correct or longer lasting.

As some say you never get a second chance to make a first impression.

Again Congrats on being named to the Board.


D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

See you tomorrow.

[frommagio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You certainly won't be investigated for advocating for your rights.

P.S. I've always paid all my taxes, and I'm not in violation of KRS 528.020, KRS 528.030, or KRS 528.040.

[/ QUOTE ]



$2.2 Million dollar fine for running a home game. (http://www.pokernews.com/news/2007/10/richard-lee-accepts-plea-deal.htm)

The Shiek getting deported under the Predator program.

IRS "Hit list" (http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/reports/0708_gpl_(2).pdf)

I would suggest that anyone that is high profile in the poker world makes sure they are squeeky clean.

One or two incidinces, no big deal, but this is almost a pattern.....


D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow! A misspelling of a misuse of a word!

You want incidents, the plural of incident - not incidences, the plural of incidence (or any other creative spelling of these or their hybrids). But dude, I love the multi-level thinking, even if it's multiple levels of mistakes!

[frommagio]

[ QUOTE ]

I'll admit I haven't read any of the iMEGA briefs or filings, given that my impression was it was a pre-UIGEA action, the UIGEA and WTO consequences should enter the judges decision making but may not.

....

D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

After this gem of an opening salvo (wonderfully incomprehensible, and yet apparently self-contradictory), what could be gained by reading further?

So I stopped! I'm learning...

[frommagio]

[ QUOTE ]

...

TE your repeated attempts to mis-chatergize my posts, suggestions, and ideas, does you a dis-service. It is clear you can not see that.

...

D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

D$D - I honestly don't believe that anybody is attempting to "mis-chatergize" your posts. I'm no dumb bunny, but I'm frankly unable to decipher most of your contributions, despite repeated readings. There must be many folks in a similar position.

D$D, man, I know that it must be really frustrating. You definitely have something to say, but you just can't say it. I can help you.

Here's my suggestion: For each post you make, decide on the point you really want to make. Then, take the time that you would normally dedicate to a 5-10 paragraph post, and instead, invest it on a single paragraph. Shoot for 5-6 sentences, and focus really, really hard on the topic sentence. Read your product three or four times, and edit it until you feel that it sparkles.

You will be amazed at the results, I guarantee it. People will begin to respond to your point. (You will have begun to make a point!)

You're on your way, dude. You've got the will, now you've got the means. Unfortunately, I can only show you the door; you need to be the one who walks through it.

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
D$D, man, I know that it must be really frustrating. You definitely have something to say, but you just can't say it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Awesome /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
D$D, man, I know that it must be really frustrating. You definitely have something to say, but you just can't say it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Awesome /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

TE and I had a nice talk about how he takes his ideas and distills them. It reminded me of the scene in a River Runs Through It, where the father was teaching his some to write, "good but use half the amount of words", making the child do that three time before the assingment was done.

I seem to do better in person for some reason. Anyway I will attempt to do better.

The Fly in was a great event and I think it has really helped put the PPA firmly on the legislative map.

Lobbiest are of course very important in shapping legislation but it is the groups with active members who take part in the process that make the job of the lobbiest that much more effective, and ultimately more sucessful.

I was very much impressed with the DC team helping John, all top notch people in their fields. Most of the things I have whined about in the past were very carefully considered and for one reason or another just were not pratical in the time frame or not workable in the overall strategic plan. Unknown to me many were part of quite a few meetings and conference calls. So if anyone thinks, as I did, that the ideas from the members are not actively considered take it from me that just is not the case.

The man helping set up the grassroots organizational efforts is one sharp character. Funny as hell as well!

The leader of the lobbying team is a long time DC veteran who can really operate in the murkey waters of this swamp we call our Capital. The other members of that group I met were just as equally impressive. I don't know what it cost to have this group behind us, but I will tell you the PPA chose the best and seem to be getting great return on that investment.

So for me I am more fired up than ever.

One person no one has mentioned yet was Victor Ramdin. That is one sharp individual. I over heard a good portion of two conversation he was having, one with reporter and another with a Congressman, he handled every question and objection with great skill and ease.

I don't mean to suggest any of the pros were lacking as all were very apporachable and acted as "regular" people, a fairly uncommon trait in this town.

I can't wait until next year! Perhaps we will be celebrating passage of a poker bill and working on how to fix the messed up IRS rules on poker.


D$D